— improved containment techniques are developed 
for biotechnological apparatus; 
— improved methods arc devised for the sterilization 
of gases and liquids; 
— exchange of experience is promoted. 
7. Educational standards should be set for scientists 
and technicians and these should include safety 
aspects. 
8. Special efforts should be made to improve public 
understanding of the various fields of biotechnology, 
especially with regard to safety. 
Bibliography 
jf- I. World Health Org misation. Summary Report of (he Working 
Croup oo the Health Implication! of Biotechnology. Geneva: 
WHO. 19fC 
2- Deutsche Gctcllschaft fur Chemisettes Apparatewesen (DE- 
CHEMA). Sicherc Biotechnologic in Arbcitsmcihoden fur die 
Biotcchnologie. Frankfurt: DECHEMA. 1982 
3. Nederlandle Vereniging voor MicTobiologie. Richtlijnen voor 
Veilig Micro biotogisch Werk. Maart. 1984 
Annex 1. Companion of EFB Gass I with corresponding national 
descriptions 
National description EFB description 
The NeiNcrlands 
Those that are nor titled in 
higher dasset. Specie! that are 
economically important in the 
production of bakers' yeast, 
beer, wine, vinegar, dairy 
product! etc. 
Germany (4) 
Microorganisms that offer no 
or only a email risk to labora- 
tory worker!, people living in 
the vicinity and animals 
United Stain ( 6 ) 
Defined and characterised 
(trains of microorg inismi not 
known to be associated with 
disease processes in healthy 
adults, or which do not colonise 
man 
No corretpooding dais in (he 
Dutch description 
Have never been incriminated 
as causative agents of illness 
etc. 
Almost identical except for 
phrase “do not colonise 
man” 
United Kingdom (7) 
Biological agents that are most Almost identical but indudes 
unlikely to cause human dis- reference to environmental 
ease fauna 
4. Labor jionum\!ieherhen. Vurlaufigc EmptchJimeen fur den 
Umgjng mit pjiliogcncn Mikroorg:milmcn unj fur die Klas- 
sifik^tion *on MikriMiru.miMiten und Krankhcitserrcuern nach 
den im Umgjng mn ihncn auftretenden Gefahren. Bundcsge- 
lundhcuihljtt 24 (22). 30. October I VS t 
5. World Health Organisation Laboratory Biosafety Manual. 
Geneva: WHO. 19X3 
6. Cemen for Disease Control. Biosafety Guidelines for Micro- 
biological and Biomedical Laboratories. Washington: Govern- 
ment Pnnting Office. 19X3 
7. Department of Health and Social Services and the Health and 
Safety Executive. Advisory Committee on Dangerous Patho- 
gens. Categorisation of Pathogens According to Risk and 
Categories of Containment. London: HMSO. 19X4 
8. Sargeant K. Evans CCT (1979) Potential Hazards in the 
Industrial Use of Microorganixmi. Brussels: Directorate Gen- 
eral for Research in Science and Education. Commission of the 
European Communities (EUR 6J4S EM) 
Received October 26. 1984 
Annex 2. Comparison of EFB Class 2 with corresponding national 
descriptions 
National description 
EFB description 
The Netherlands (3) 
Microorganisms listed in the 
lowest. Class 1 list of patho- 
gens. According to experience 
seldom cause infection in lab- 
oratory workers 
(s (he same as Dutch Class I 
but Dutch definition does not 
include possible influence on 
the environment 
Germany (4) 
Microorganisms that offer 
some risk to Laboratory work- 
ers but small risk to people 
living in the vidnity and to 
animals 
Similar but mentions (hat ef- 
fective prophylaxis and treat- 
ment are available 
United States (6) 
Indigenous agents present in 
the community and of moder- 
ate potential hazard to per- 
sonnel and to the environ- 
ment 
Differs in that if considers 
spread in the environment 
unlikely 
United Kingdom (7) 
Biological agents that may 
cause human disease and that 
might be a hazard to laboratory 
workers but which are unlikely 
to spread in the environment or 
the community. Laboratory ex- 
posure rarely causes infection. 
Effective prophylaxes and treat- 
ment are available 
Almost identical 
Recombinant DNA Research, Volume 13 
[365] 
